Find court opinions that match your case.

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1875

Roemer v. Simon

Roemer v. Simon et al. 1. This court cannot, after an appeal in equity, receive new evidence; nor can it upon motion set aside a decree of the court below, and grant a rehearing. 2. The court below can grant a rehearing during the term at w

91 U.S. 149 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1875

Brown v. Piper

Brown et al. v. Piper. 1. The application by the patentee of an old process to a new subject, without •any exercise of the inventive faculty,-and without the development of any idea which can be deemed new or original- in the sense of the p

91 U.S. 37 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

American Wood-Paper Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co.

The Wood-Paper Patent. The American Wood-Paper Co. v. The Fibre Disintegrating Co. The Fibre Disintegrating Co. v. The American Wood-Paper Co. 1. A manufacture or a product of a process may be no novelty, and, therefore, unpatentable; while

90 U.S. 566 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1874

Collar Co. v. Van Dusen

Collar Company v. Van Dusen. 1. The purpose of a reissue is to render effectual the actual invention for which the original patent should have been granted, not to introduce new features. Therefore, in an application for reissue parol testi

90 U.S. 530 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

Tremaine v. Hitchcock & Co.

The Tremolo Patent. Tremaine v. Hitchcock & Co. Hitchcock & Co. v. Tremaine. 1. An amendment which changed the character of a bill, allowed even after final decree, the circumstances being peculiar and the cause having been, in fact, tried

90 U.S. 518 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

Smith v. Adsit

Smith v. Adsit. Where a complainant alleging himself to be a bond fide purchaser, and setting out a case in the highest State court for equitable relief against a sale to other parties xvhich'an owner of land had undertaken to make, alleged

90 U.S. 368 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1874

Reedy v. Scott

Reedy v. Scott. 1. Though as a general rule suits for infringement of a patent, are defeated by the surrender of the patent, and a new original bill — not a supplemental bill — is the proper sort of bill by which to proceed for an infringem

90 U.S. 352 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

Mason v. Graham

Mason v. Graham. 1. The patent of E. H. Graham, of October 16th, 1860, reissued May 28th, 1867, for “picker-staff motion in looms,” has no relation to the mere form of a journal-bearing arm, nor does it consist in arranging a journal-bearin

90 U.S. 261 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

Brown v. Guild

The Corn-planter Patent. [Brown v. Guild. Same v. Selby.] 1. Five reissues were granted on a surrendered patent, granted originally in 1853 to G. W. Brown, for improvements in corn-planting machines. On two bills, one against Bergen & Sisso

90 U.S. 181 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1874

Hunnewell v. Cass County

Hunnewell v. Cass County. 1. Under the act of July 2d, 1864 (13 Stat. at Large, 364), which gave to the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company every alternate section of the public lands, to the amount of ten alternate sections per

89 U.S. 464 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

Railway Co. v. McShane

Railway Company v. McShane et al. 1. The Railway Company v. Prescott (16 Wallace, 603) modified and overruled so far as it asserts the contingent right of pre-emption in lands granted to the Pacific Railroad Company, to constitute an exempt

89 U.S. 444 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1874

Connoyer v. Schaeffer

Connoyer et al. v. Schaeffer. 1. Under proceedings before the boards of commissioners appointed under the act of March 2d, 1805, for ascertaining and adjusting the claims to land embraced in the Louisiana purchase, and the several subsequen

89 U.S. 254 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

House v. Mullen

House et al. v. Mullen. 1. A bill was filed by two parties, one of whom showed good cause for equitable relief, but the other of whom did not show what interest he had in the subject-matter of jitigation, or that he had any. The bill was de

89 U.S. 42 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1874

Gill v. Wells

Gill v. Wells. 1. An original patent of one Wells, for a hat-body machine, among other things, minutely described a specific device called a “ chamber or tunnel,” composed of two side pieces, a bottom piece, and a top piece, permanently uni

89 U.S. 1 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1874

Morton v. Nebraska

Morton v. Nebraska. 1. The policy of the government, since the acquisition of the Northwest Territory and the inauguration of our land system, to reserve salt springs from sale, has been uniform. This policy 1ms been applied to the “ Louisi

88 U.S. 660 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1874

Langdeau v. Hanes

Langdeau v. Hanes. The State of Virginia, which, prior to tho Revolution, asserted title to tho Northwest Territory, always respected the possessions and titles of the French and Canadian inhabitants who had doularcd themselves her citizens

88 U.S. 521 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1874

Grosholz v. Newman

Grosholz v. Newman. 1. A mere intention to make a lot adjoining one on which a man and wife have their dwelling — the two lots being separated only by a small alley— a part of a homestead, and the subsequent actual building of a kitchen on

88 U.S. 481 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

Michaels v. Post

Michaels et al. v. Post, Assignee. 1. Where one creditor has been induced by fraudulent representations ol another creditor, who wishes to get into his own hands all the property of their common debtor, to release his debt, and the second c

88 U.S. 398 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1874

Littlefield v. Perry

Littlefield v. Perry. 1. Where one instrument, duly recorded in the Patent Office, contains in unmistakable language, an absolute conveyance by a patentee of his patent and inventions described (in this case applications of a principle of h

88 U.S. 205 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1874

Smith v. Nichols

Smith v. Nichols. 1. Under the seventh and ninth sections of the Patent' Act of 1837, which authorize a patentee, when by mistake, &c., he may have made his specification too broad, to make disclaimer of such parts of the thing patented as

88 U.S. 112 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

Schulenberg v. Harriman

Schulenberg et al. v. Harriman. 1. On the 3d of June, 1856, Congress passed an act entitled “ An act granting public lands to the State of Wisconsin to aid in the construction of railroads in said State.” That act grants to the State for th

88 U.S. 44 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Dismissed Intellectual Property 1874

Parcels v. Johnson

Parcels v. Johnson. A writ of error from this court will not lie to remove the judgment of an inferior appellate court, where the judgment of that court remands a ■ case to another below it for new trial and hearing, and where it is evi-. d

87 U.S. 653 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

Ambler v. Whipple

Ambler v. Whipple. 1. Where an instrument prepared by one partner for signature by his co-partner, with whom ho has'fallen out and quarrelled, contains mutual' releases and assignments — each being the consideration of the other— it snould,

87 U.S. 546 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1874

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard

Rubber-Tip Pencil Company v. Howard. Though an idea of a person who afterwards obtains, a patent for a device to give his idea effect, riiay.be a good idea, yet if the.device is not new his patent is void, even though'it-be useful. The prin

87 U.S. 498 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion